-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Noah and his Ark - Believe it or Not?
- Thread starter t3gah
- Start date
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
Sooo...you're saying that evolution is true? All of those "kinds" of animals would need to evolve variations and species, after all. (Forgive me for assuming that you believe in creationism, but it seems to come with the territory.) Also, what exactly is the criteria for "kinds". Does that mean one animal from each class, order, family, or genus?...Or is it more of a religious moniker?
Also, what about all of the food that these animals would need--where and how was it kept? Why didn't the carnivores attack the herbivores? Why didn't the birds unknowinly fly off to die at sea?
The "kinds" of animals selected had reference to the clear-cut and unalterable boundaries or limits set by the Creator, within which boundaries creatures are capable of breeding "according to their kinds." It has been estimated by some that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals today could be reduced to a comparatively few family "kinds"the horse kind and the cow kind, to mention but two. The breeding boundaries according to "kind" established by Jehovah were not and could not be crossed
These estimates may seem too restrictive to some, especially since such sources as The Encyclopedia Americana indicate that there are upwards of 1,300,000 species of animals. (1977, Vol. 1, pp. 859-873) However, over 60 percent of these are insects. Breaking these figures down further, of the 24,000 amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, 10,000 are birds, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, many of which could have survived outside the ark, and only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises, which would have also remained outside the ark. Other researchers estimate that there are only about 290 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats. (The Deluge Story in Stone, by B. C. Nelson, 1949, p. 156; The Flood in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology, by A. M. Rehwinkel, 1957, p. 69) So, even if estimates are based on these expanded figures, the ark could easily have accommodated a pair of all these animals.
These estimates may seem too restrictive to some, especially since such sources as The Encyclopedia Americana indicate that there are upwards of 1,300,000 species of animals. (1977, Vol. 1, pp. 859-873) However, over 60 percent of these are insects. Breaking these figures down further, of the 24,000 amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, 10,000 are birds, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, many of which could have survived outside the ark, and only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises, which would have also remained outside the ark. Other researchers estimate that there are only about 290 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats. (The Deluge Story in Stone, by B. C. Nelson, 1949, p. 156; The Flood in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology, by A. M. Rehwinkel, 1957, p. 69) So, even if estimates are based on these expanded figures, the ark could easily have accommodated a pair of all these animals.
Druidus
Keeper of the Grove
Look, it's still impossible. Did Noah have a jet that he used to reach other continents and nab the necessary species there? Also, there is no way the species would survive with only two of each. Seriously, think about it. Even if they did survive, we would notice the signs of it, especially genetic. Take, for example, cheetahs. We have seen that cheetahs have an extremely low gene pool, putting them at an extremely high risk for disease. Why? Because some time ago, a plague killed most cheetahs, and left only a small group who were immune, or resistant, to the effects of the disease. Even then they wouldn't have had to inbreed too much. It's biologically impossible, physically impossible, utterly inconcievable, and to make it have even an ounce of truth about it, you have to alter the story presented in the bible. Get over it. Your precious bible isn't 100% factual. And why should it be? Does that refute your entire religion? No. Deal with it.
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
This makes no logical sense. First of all, I must ask you again: which scientific category does "kind" most closely parallel? I assume that horses and donkeys are of the same "kind". Well, this may come as a shocker, but they cannot produce fertile offspring, and are therefore not considered able to successfully breed. What about house cats and lions? I assume that they are of the same "kind" as well, yet they cannot be bred at all.
None of these animals can survive without land for 40 days.
Considering that your sources are dated as early as 1949 and 1957, I think we've just found the root of why these 'estimates' are so out of date.
Even if these were true, however, the ark would still not be able to house all of them, not to mention their food. To restate another of my questions, how did Noah keep the carnivores from eating the herbivores?
Pah
Uber all member
Mating, of course, is not the definition of species but the production of fertile offspring is!!!!! In the horse "kind", a horse and donkey do not continue any species.may said:
Please point to a list when the "kinds" are enumerated.
I find it quite telling that you would insist on "kinds" and yet give us information on species.
By the way, seven animals were taken upon the ark - if they were bliblically "clean". You should re-compute those numbers based on that division of animals
What about the plants - where they kept?
Tell us about the salinity of the "flood waters" and tell us how the marine creatures that could not live in the waters of the flood were preserved
You are not done yet, May.
Whereas specific created "kinds" may number only in the hundreds, there are many more varieties of animals and plants on the earth. Modern research has indicated that hundreds of thousands of different plants are members of the same family. Similarly, in the animal kingdom, there may be many varieties of cats, all belonging to one cat family or feline "kind." The same is true of men, of cattle, and of dogs, allowing for great diversity within each "kind." But the fact remains that no matter how many varieties occur in each family, none of these "kinds" can commingle genetically.
it becomes apparent that Noah could get all the necessary animals into the ark for preservation through the Flood. The Bible does not say that he had to preserve alive every variety of the animals. Rather, it states: "Of the flying creatures according to their kinds and of the domestic animals according to their kinds, of all moving animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive." (Ge 6:20; 7:14, 15) Jehovah God knew it was necessary to save only representative members of the different "kinds," since they would reproduce in variety after the Flood.
Following the recession of the floodwaters, these comparatively few basic "kinds" emerged from the ark and spread out over the surface of the earth, eventually producing many variations of their "kinds." Although many new varieties have come into existence since the Flood, the surviving "kinds" have remained fixed and unchanged, in harmony with the unchangeable word of Jehovah God.Isa 55:8-11.
Pah
Uber all member
may said:
Now there's a bit of non-eductaion for most of us. We are well aware that if species can not produce fertile offspring with interbreeding none of the higher classifications can either.
The fact is, May, you have not given us a list of "kinds" nor pointed to one. You have not defined "kind" by its scientific characteristics.
The fact is, May, you have not given us a list of "kinds" nor pointed to one. You have not defined "kind" by its scientific characteristics.
No! It is not apparant. You have not defined "necessary".
So God knew about evolution, eh?
I was wondering, May, if primate was a "kind". As there were eight humans aboard, and for space saving measures, there would not be a need for other primates - no monkies - no apes. So post-flood evolution would make us the common ancestor for all primates.
If so many literalist Christians scoff at the idea we came from a common ape ancestor, how much more replusive is it to have fathered them? You go right ahead with your theory of "kinds" May, but live with the thought that your fathers and brothers (the Jews) mated and gave birth to the "monkey kind"
The whole complete story of Noah and the flood covers only a few pages of the Bible, this thread is already 15 pages discussing what (isn't) written in the text. The universe is in God, not the other way around. God is BIG and POWERFUL, whether you believe it or not. Have fun.
Since the Flood legends are generally found among people who did not come in touch with the Bible until recent centuries, it would be a mistake to contend that the Scriptural account influenced them. Moreover, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says: "The universality of the flood accounts is usually taken as evidence for the universal destruction of humanity by a flood . . . Moreover, some of the ancient accounts were written by people very much in opposition to the Hebrew-Christian tradition." (Volume 2, page 319) So we can confidently conclude that the Flood legends confirm the reality of the Biblical account.
linwood
Well-Known Member
No one is saying a flood or many floods didn`t happen.
We`re questioning the validity of the Biblical account of "All the world covered by water".
The recent tsunamis are evidence of the magnitude of a relatively small disaster taking on "Biblical" proportions in the geographical area influenced by it.
We`re questioning the validity of the Biblical account of "All the world covered by water".
The recent tsunamis are evidence of the magnitude of a relatively small disaster taking on "Biblical" proportions in the geographical area influenced by it.
linwood said:
The Deluge did not come suddenly without warning. Years of time were spent building the ark, time that Noah the "preacher of righteousness" also used in warning that wicked generation. (2Pe 2:5)
The
Floodwaters. It has been said that if all the moisture in the atmosphere were suddenly released as rain it would not amount to even a couple of inches if spread over the earths surface. So from what source was this vast deluge of Noahs day? According to the Genesis account, God said to Noah: "Here I [Jehovah] am bringing the deluge [or, "heavenly ocean"; Heb., mab·bul´] of waters upon the earth." (Ge 6:17,) Describing what happened, the next chapter says: "All the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened." (Ge 7:11) So overwhelming was the Deluge that "all the tall mountains that were under the whole heavens came to be covered."Ge 7:19.
Where did this "heavenly ocean" come from? The Genesis account of creation tells how on the second "day" Jehovah made an expanse about the earth, and this expanse (called "Heaven") formed a division between the waters below it, that is, the oceans, and the waters above it. (Ge 1:6-8) The waters suspended above the expanse evidently remained there from the second "day" of creation until the Flood. This is what the apostle Peter was talking about when he recounted that there "were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God." Those "heavens" and the waters above and beneath them were the means that Gods word called into operation, and "by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water." (2Pe 3:5, 6) Various explanations have been offered as to how the water was held aloft until the Flood and as to the processes that resulted in its falling. But these are only speculative. The Bible says simply that God made the expanse with waters above it and that he brought the Deluge. His almighty power could easily accomplish it.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
you forget that just as more people Dont have flood stories in thier cultures.
Not all flood stories agree with the biblical account. Some say only two people survived, some say it wasn't a gloabal flood, just a big local one. None of them have an Ark or humans saving two of every animal, none have the 40 days mentioned in the bible.
Biblical justification as desperately grasped onto anything that may tennuously support thier story. Unfortuantly they ignore any evidence, eaven evidence within thier supposed 'supporting evidence' that disproves or casts doubt on thier ideas.
There is evidence that a massive flood happined around the area of the middle east. There is no evidence that a GLOBAL flood ever happined.
wa:do
Not all flood stories agree with the biblical account. Some say only two people survived, some say it wasn't a gloabal flood, just a big local one. None of them have an Ark or humans saving two of every animal, none have the 40 days mentioned in the bible.
Biblical justification as desperately grasped onto anything that may tennuously support thier story. Unfortuantly they ignore any evidence, eaven evidence within thier supposed 'supporting evidence' that disproves or casts doubt on thier ideas.
There is evidence that a massive flood happined around the area of the middle east. There is no evidence that a GLOBAL flood ever happined.
wa:do
is there geological evidence of the Flood? Indeed there is, and it has long been recognized by various scholars. For example, in 1761 Alexander Catcott, A.M., wrote A Treatise on the Deluge, citing what he considered to be proof of the cataclysm. He has been quoted as saying: "We appeal once more to Nature and find that there are, at this day, as evident, as demonstrative, as incontestable proofs of the Deluge over the face of the earth . . . as if it had happened last year . . . Search the earth; you will find the moose-deer, native of America, buried in Ireland; elephants, natives of Asia and Africa, buried in the midst of England; crocodiles, natives of the Nile, in the heart of Germany; shell-fish, never known in the American seas, together with the entire skeletons of whales, in the most inland regions of England; trees of vast dimensions, with their roots and their tops, and some also with leaves and fruit, at the bottom of mines."
Bible students, however, do not base their belief in the global flood on the evidences of geology. They accept the Holy Scriptures as the truthful Word of God. (1 Thess. 2:13) Yet, it is interesting to note that eminent scholars have found throughout the earth features that they accept as testimony to a global deluge.